Delhi Courts Weekly Round Up [May 25- May 31, 2026]

1. [Congress Leader Alka Lamba] A Delhi Court has convicted Congress leader Alka Lamba in a case relating to the alleged assault of police personnel during a protest held at Jantar Mantar in 2024. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) Ashwani Panwar passed the order of conviction and listed the matter for June 5 for hearing arguments on the sentence to be awarded to Lamba. The case pertains to allegations that police officials were assaulted during the course of a protest demonstration at the national capital’s Jantar Mantar area. A detailed copy of the order is awaited. Notably, in February, this year, a special court at Delhi’s Rouse Avenue has refused to interfere with the framing of criminal charges against former Congress MLA and women’s rights activist Alka Lamba in connection with a protest held at Jantar Mantar in July 2024, holding that the prosecution material disclosed sufficient grounds to proceed to trial and that the issues raised by the accused were matters to be tested during evidence. The court had underscored that at the stage of framing of charge, it is not required to assess whether the allegations will ultimately result in conviction, but only whether a prima facie case exists warranting a full-fledged trial.

Case Title: State v. Alka Lamba

Bench: Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Ashwani Panwat

Click here to read more

2. [Sterling Biotech Fraud coverage] Finance news portal Moneylife has approached a Delhi court challenging a trial court order directing takedown and de-indexing of reports and videos concerning businessman Manoj Kesarichand Sandesara, his family and the alleged Sterling Biotech bank fraud case. District Judge Sunil Choudhary of the Tis Hazari Courts heard the appeal and recorded an undertaking on behalf of Sandesara that no further takedown requests would be pursued for the time being.  "Ld. counsel for respondent no.1 gives undertaking that respondent no.1 shall not request for further take down in terms of the order dated 16.05.2026 passed by the Ld. trial court in CS No.459/26 title as ‘Manoj Kesari Chand Sandesara vs. Google LLC & Ors regarding the articles / videos / or any other material which is already available on the internet till next date of hearing," the Judge said. The matter has now been listed for hearing on July 14. The appeal challenges a May 16 order passed by a senior civil judge in a suit filed by Sandesara against Google LLC and others. The impugned order restrained Moneylife from publishing, republishing or circulating content relating to Sandesara and his family in connection with Sterling Biotech Limited and the alleged bank fraud case. It also directed de-indexing, de-listing and de-referencing of specified URLs as well as “such other links not known to the Plaintiff”.

Case Title: Moneywise v. Manoj Kesarichand Sandesara

Bench: District Judge Sunil Choudhary

Click here to read more

3. [Harsh Mander's plea alleging Hate Speech] A Delhi court has issued notice to Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma and the Delhi Police on a plea filed by activist Harsh Mander seeking registration of an FIR against the BJP leader over alleged hate speech remarks targeting “Miya” voters in Assam. Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Sonu Agnihotri of the Saket Courts issued notice on Mander’s revision petition challenging a magistrate court order which had earlier refused to direct registration of an FIR. The matter has now been listed for hearing on July 15. Mander’s complaint relates to a speech allegedly delivered by Sarma on January 27 at Digboi in Assam’s Tinsukia district, where the Chief Minister purportedly stated that “four to five lakh Miya voters” would be removed from electoral rolls during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise. According to the plea, Sarma also allegedly urged people to “trouble Miyas” and stated that “only if they face troubles will they leave Assam,” while further claiming that authorities were ensuring they could not vote in the state. The complaint sought registration of an FIR under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) relating to promoting enmity between groups, prejudicial assertions affecting national integration, statements conducive to public mischief, and deliberate acts intended to outrage religious feelings. Judicial Magistrate First Class Bhanu Pratap Singh on April 20 had dismissed the plea earlier, holding that the alleged statements were made outside the court’s territorial jurisdiction. The magistrate had also observed that no material had been placed on record to demonstrate that the remarks caused disharmony or incitement within the jurisdiction of the Delhi court.

Case Title: Harsh Mander v. Hemanta Biswa Sharma

Bench: ASJ Sonu Agnihotri

Click here to read more

4. [Newslaundry Editor Manisha Pande] A Delhi Court has adjourned the hearing in a plea filed by Newslaundry Editorial Director Manisha Pande seeking registration of an FIR against commentator Abhijit Iyer Mitra over alleged abusive and sexually coloured remarks made on social media targeting her and other women employees of the media platform. The matter was taken up before Additional Sessions Judge Purshotam Pathak. During the hearing, the Court noted that an electronic case record (ECR) had been received. Senior Advocate Nandita Rao appeared on behalf of the State (Delhi Police). The Court also recorded that none appeared on behalf of the revisionist when the matter was called out. The case pertains to a revision application filed by Pande challenging earlier proceedings relating to her request for registration of an FIR against Mitra. At the hearing, Senior Advocate Rao requested the Court to take up the matter on June 6 citing personal difficulty. However, the Court declined the request. “I cannot pass orders on the last working day,” the judge observed while refusing to adjourn the matter beyond the proposed schedule. The Court ultimately adjourned the matter to June 4 for hearing arguments on the revision application. The plea concerns allegations that abusive and sexually coloured remarks were made against Pande and other women employees associated with Newslaundry through social media posts allegedly published by Mitra.

Case Title: Abhijit Iyer Mitra v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Ors.

Bench: Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Purushottam Pathak

Click here to read more

5. [Satyender Jain Defamation Case] The Rouse Avenue Court has taken cognisance of a defamation complaint filed by former Delhi Minister Satyender Jain against BJP MLA Karnail Singh, holding that there were sufficient grounds to proceed in the matter. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Paras Dalal observed that the allegations disclosed a prima facie case for trial and directed Karnail Singh to appear before the court on June 6. “There are sufficient grounds to proceed further in this matter,” the court said while issuing process under Section 227 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). The complaint stems from an interview allegedly given by Karnail Singh on a news channel on January 19, 2025, in which he made statements concerning Jain’s assets and alleged misconduct. The court noted that since the accused and complainant were political opponents from the same constituency, the statements ought to have been made with a higher degree of care and caution. It also observed that the accused, while speaking to the media, had advised caution in publishing his remarks but had not verified the factual basis of his own claims. “The proposed accused, however, himself did not bother to check his facts before giving the interview. The facts stated by him in the complaint are not backed by any ED statement, press release or information in the public domain,” the court observed. The order further recorded that the alleged statements, including claims about recovery of gold and ownership of large tracts of land, would require examination during trial, including whether they fall within any exception to criminal defamation.

Case Title: Satyendar Jain v. Karnail Singh

Bench: ACJM Paras Dalal

Click here to read more

6. [Shraddha Walker murder case] A Delhi Court has directed that the trial in the Shraddha Walkar murder case will proceed on a day-to-day basis from July 20, in an effort to expedite long-pending proceedings. Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Hargurvarinder Singh Jaggi of Saket Court listed the matter for recording prosecution evidence daily between July 20 and July 25, after which dates for August will be fixed. The case has been pending since 2023. Aftab Amin Poonawala is facing trial for the alleged murder of his live-in partner, Shraddha Walkar, in May 2022. The FIR in the case was registered at Mehrauli police station in November 2022, with allegations that the accused dismembered the body and disposed of the remains in a forested area. The Court noted that there are eight prosecution witnesses yet to be examined. While the chief examination of 13 witnesses has been partly recorded, testimony of 12 witnesses was deferred earlier. During Friday’s proceedings, the Court recorded the evidence of Head Constable Deepak, who was discharged for the day after defence counsel sought time to examine a video linked to the case and expressed inability to attend daily hearings due to other matters.

Case Title: State v. Aftab Amin Poonawala

Bench: Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Hargurvarinder Singh Jaggi

Click here to read more

7. [Delhi Gymkhana club] The Delhi High Court has refused to grant interim relief to the Delhi Gymkhana Club in its challenge against the Centre’s move directing the Club to vacate its premises by June 5, after the Union government assured the Court that no possession would be taken except in accordance with law. Justice Avneesh Jhingan was hearing pleas filed by longtime club member Vijay Khurana and the Delhi Gymkhana Staff Welfare Association challenging the Centre’s communication regarding termination of the Club’s perpetual lease and proposed re-entry into the premises. Appearing for the Club, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued that the impugned communication was effectively a final order passed without any prior show cause notice or adherence to principles of natural justice. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre through video conferencing, defended the government’s action and submitted that the lease could be terminated under Clause 4 of the lease deed. He clarified that the Centre was not planning any forcible takeover and that all steps would be taken strictly under the procedure established by law. “We will not take possession, except as per procedure established under law,” Mehta assured the Court. The Court repeatedly questioned the nature of the Centre’s communication, observing that the key issue was whether it amounted to a final order or was merely a notice concerning re-entry and vacation of the premises. Singhvi argued that the grounds cited by the Centre such as “public security”, “defence”, “governance infrastructure” and “public infrastructure projects” were excessively broad and vague. Referring to the Supreme Court’s judgment in the Express Newspapers case, he contended that “public purpose” must be real, specific and definite.

Case Title: Vijay Khurana v. Union of India

Bench: Justices Avneesh Jhingan

Click here and here to read more

8. [Umar Khalid] The Delhi High Court has granted student activist Umar Khalid a three-day interim bail in the larger conspiracy case connected to the 2020 northeast Delhi riots, allowing him to meet his mother, who is scheduled to undergo surgery, and attend the Chehlum ceremony of his deceased uncle. The Court held that the circumstances warranted a humanitarian approach and temporarily released Khalid despite the pendency of serious charges against him under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA). A Division Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Madhu Jain directed that Khalid be released on interim bail from June 1 to June 3, observing that an “empathetic view” was justified in the facts of the case. While granting the relief, the Court imposed strict conditions, including restricting Khalid’s movement to the National Capital Region (NCR), requiring him to stay only at his residential address, and permitting visits solely to the hospital where his mother is scheduled to undergo treatment.

Case Title: Umar Khalid v. State

Bench: Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Madhu Jain

Click here to read more

9. [Salim Malik] The Delhi High Court has granted bail to Salim Malik alias Munna in a case arising out of the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy FIR registered under provisions of the IPC, UAPA, Arms Act and Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act. A Division Bench comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Madhu Jain was hearing an appeal challenging a January 2026 order refusing bail to the appellant in FIR No. 59/2020. “After having considered the role of the Appellant, this Court is of the view that the same is similar to the role which is attributed to Mohd. Saleem Khan and Shadab Ahmad who had also participated in the meetings, protest and chakka jams. There is no major distinction between the role of the Appellant and the role of Mohd. Saleem Khan and Shadab Ahmad…..The Appellant has been in custody for more than five years and ten months as per the latest nominal roll. The stage of the trial is that arguments on charge are being presently heard. Accordingly, the trial is going to take some time. 14. Under these circumstances, bearing in mind the role of the Appellant, this Court is of the view that the Appellant deserves to be released on bail subject to the same conditions as imposed in case of Mohd. Saleem Khan and Shadab Ahmad by the Supreme Court in Gulfisha Fatima (Supra)”, the Court observed. The appellant argued that his role was similar to that of co-accused who had already been granted bail by the Supreme Court in the Gulfisha Fatima case. The State opposed the plea, contending that Malik actively participated in conspiracy meetings and played a role in the riots. According to the prosecution, the appellant attended meetings held on February 16-17 and February 20-21, 2020, where the alleged conspiracy was discussed. He was also accused of participating in riots, pelting stones and bricks, and delivering inflammatory speeches during the violence.

Case Title: Salim Malik Munna v. State Through SHO PS Special Cell

Bench: Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Madhu Jain

Click here to read more

10. [Vinesh Phogat] The Delhi High Court has allowed wrestler Vinesh Phogat to participate in the Asian Games 2026 selection trials scheduled from May 30, holding that motherhood and maternity-related circumstances cannot be used to exclude female athletes from competition. A Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia delivered the verdict on May 22 while hearing Phogat’s appeal against a single-judge order refusing interim relief. “It cannot be denied that the journey of a female athlete through pregnancy and the post-partum period is one that is marked by extraordinary physical challenges, the magnitude of which is often insufficiently acknowledged within institutional sporting frameworks. We cannot remain oblivious to the physiological realities and disadvantages related to child birth that female athletes undergo during maternity”, the Court observed. The Bench also strongly criticised the Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) for issuing what it termed a “deplorable” show-cause notice to Phogat and held that the Federation’s conduct appeared vindictive and mala fide. The WFI had referred to Phogat’s disqualification from the Paris Olympics for being overweight as a “national shame” and “national embarrassment.”

Case Title: Vinesh Phogat v. Wrestling Federation of India & Ors.

Bench: Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia

Click here to read more

11. [Youtuber Gulshan Pahuja] The Delhi High Court has sentenced YouTuber Gulshan Pahuja to six months’ simple imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs. 2,000 after holding him guilty of criminal contempt for remarks made against the judiciary in videos uploaded on his YouTube channel, “Fight 4 Judicial Reforms.” A Division Bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja that Pahuja had “scandalised the court and lowered the authority of the Court” through his statements and conduct. “In the present case, as found in our judgment dated 21.04.2026, the contemnor, by his acts, has scandalized the court and lowered the authority of the Court. The contemnor shows no regret for the same. He also does not suggest any course correction. In fact, he maintains that what he did was with the intent of improving the judicial system”, the Court observed. The Court noted that Pahuja showed “no regret” and continued making objectionable remarks even during the hearing on sentencing. During oral submissions, Pahuja stated, “adaalaton ki manmarzi badhti jaa rahi hai aur main koi nyay ki umeed nahi kar raha” and further remarked that “manmarzi ka dusra arth taanashahi hota hai.” According to the Bench, these remarks aggravated the contempt already established against him.

Case Title: Court On Its Own Motion v. Shiv Narayan Sharma Adv and Ors

Bench: Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja

Click here to read more